George Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the outstanding growth and service of the NASA Langley Pre-Service Teacher Program. This year's national conference, which is being held this week from February 17 through 19, 2005, will mark the 10 year anniversary of this highly successful educational program. The Pre-Service Teacher Program is a project run through the cooperation of NASA's Langley Office of Education and Norfolk State University's School of Science & Technology. Its mission is to provide Pre-Service teachers and faculty members opportunities to enhance their knowledge and skill in teaching mathematics and science using technology at the elementary and middle school levels. Since its humble beginnings as a small regional conference held in Hampton, VA, in 1995, the Pre-Service Teacher Program has grown into a large national conference annually held in Alexandria, VA. The program began with only 25 member institutions representing 10 States and now boasts membership of over 104 institutions representing 31 States. It is important to recognize that of the 104 member institutions, there are representatives from Hispanic Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities. The Pre-Service Teacher Program's continued growth led to the addition of a Pre-Service Teacher Institute in 1998. This 2-week long immersion program allows more pre-service teachers the opportunity to interface with NASA personnel, tour Langley's facilities, and learn ways to incorporate NASA's cutting-edge research into lesson plans for elementary and middle school students. As the success of this program has grown, the Pre-Service Teacher Program expanded in 2000 to seven sites beyond Hampton, VA, and, with time, I am sure it will continue to grow. I congratulate the Pre-Service Teacher Program's tremendous growth and impact on Virginia classrooms and schools across the Nation. They are to be commended for their hard work and attention to our Nation's future: our children. I wish them continued success, keep fighting and keep succeeding.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, today, with my colleagues, Senators Talent, Graham, McCain, Lott, Warner, Grassley and Thune, I rise to introduce the Minority Serving Institution Digital & Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2005. This legislation will provide vital resources to address the technology gap that exists at many Minority Serving Institutions, MSIs. With this legislation together, as a country, we move one step closer to eliminating what I like to call the ``economic opportunity divide'' that exists between Minority Serving Institutions and non-minority institutions of higher education. This legislation will establish a new grant program that provides up to $250 million a year to help Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges upgrade their technology and communications infrastructure. Since before I was elected to the Senate, my goal has always been to look for ways to improve education and empower all of our young people--regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion or economic background--to compete and succeed in life. With over 200 Hispanic Serving Institutions; over 100 Historically Black Colleges and Universities and 34 tribal colleges throughout our country, it is clear that Minority Serving Institutions provide a valuable service to the educational strength and future growth of our Nation. These institutions must have the technology capabilities and infrastructure available to their students and faculty to successfully compete and succeed in today's workforce. Our goal with this legislation is clear--by increasing access to technology and addressing the technological disparities that exist at Minority Serving Institutions we will provide our young people with important tools for success, both in the classroom and in the workforce. This nation's economic stability and growth are increasingly dependent on a growing portion of the workforce possessing technological skills. African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans constitute one- quarter of the total U.S. workforce. Approximately, one-third of all students of color in this nation are educated at Minority Serving Institutions. It is estimated that in 10 years minorities will comprise nearly 40 percent of all college-age Americans. Yet, members of these minorities represent only 7 percent of the U.S. computer and information science workforce; 6 percent of the engineering workforce; and less than 2 percent of the computer science faculty. At the same time, we know that 60 percent of all jobs require information technology skills and these jobs pay significantly higher salaries than jobs of a non-technical nature. I am proud to say Virginia is home to five Historically Black Colleges & Universities--Norfolk State University, St. Paul's College, Virginia Union University, Hampton University and Virginia State University. Mr. President, we must ensure that the students attending these minority institutions are competing on a level playing field when it comes to technology skills and development. We must tap the talent and potential of these students to ensure that America's workforce is prepared to lead the world. The legislation allows eligible institutions the opportunity through grants, contracts or cooperative agreements to acquire equipment, instrumentation, networking capability, hardware and software, digital network technology and wireless technology/infrastructure--such as wireless fidelity or WiFi--to develop and provide educational services. Additionally, the grants can be used for equipment upgrades, technology training and hardware/software acquisition. A Minority Serving Institution also can use the funds to offer its students universal access to campus networks, dramatically increase their connectivity rates, or make necessary infrastructure improvements. The best jobs in the future will go to those who are the best prepared. However, I am increasingly concerned that when it comes to high technology jobs--which pay higher wages--this country runs the risk of economically limiting many college students in our society. It is important for all Americans that we close this opportunity gap. Providing equal technological opportunities for all Americans will have a positive impact on our education system, our economic competitiveness and future generations of innovators and leaders. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation. This exact legislation passed the Senate last year 97-0. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for joining me today in cosponsoring this legislation and I look forward to working with fellow Senators to push this important measure across the goal-line so that many more college students are provided access to better technology and education, and most importantly, even greater opportunities in life.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would re-open Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to all aviation. Since the tragic attacks of September 11, 2001, general aviation flights have not been permitted to operate in and out of Reagan National Airport. My legislation would direct the executive branch to develop and implement standards for the resumption of general aviation flights. The closing of Reagan National to general aviation was understandable, prudent and tolerable in the weeks and months following the tragedy of September 11. The safety and security of the capital region is paramount and will always guide our decisions. But, despite Congressional action mandating a detailed plan to re-open the airport to general aviation following a massive strengthening of our airports and air traffic control system serving the Washington area, the Federal Government has done little to develop a plan that would allow for the use of Reagan National for private aircraft. Closing Reagan National to general aviation has had a substantial negative effect on jobs and the economy of the capital region. Non- scheduled air carrier operations at Reagan National once generated an estimated $50 million a year in direct economic activity from charter revenue, aircraft handling and refueling services. The lack of charter and general aviation passengers coming into the city, hotels, restaurants and other service businesses near Reagan National have suffered a significant, negative economic impact as well. Since September 11, 2001, air charter operators have participated in a rigorous security program that makes their operations just as safe, if not safer, than those of commercial airlines. Charter operators also have the capability to check the names of their passengers against government terrorist watch lists. Given the unique location of the airport, stakeholders in the general aviation industry are willing to comply with virtually any rational government policy that would grant access to Reagan National for general aviation aircraft. Such proposals include using ``gateway'' airports in which all flights into Reagan National must first land for additional screening, and added screening of pilots and passengers. There are also new technological advances that could be required for private planes using Reagan National. Notwithstanding the willingness of those in general aviation to comply with reasonable security procedures that may be implemented, government agencies have remained stolidly silent on the issue. That is why I have decided to introduce legislation directing the Department of Homeland Security to finalize and implement regulations that would again allow general aviation flights to operate at Reagan National. The measure allows for reasonable requirements to ensure the security of operations at Reagan National. The requirements include screening and certification of flight and ground crews; advance clearance of passenger manifests; physical screening of passengers and luggage; the physical inspection of aircraft; special flight procedures and limiting the airports from which flights can originate. The Government was able to find conditions under which commercial aviation could operate out of Reagan National following the September 11 terrorist attacks. I see no reason why similar conditions or requirements could not be developed to allow for general aviation to also begin operations again. Congressionally mandated actions on this issue have yet to result in a plan or set of circumstances that would fully re-open Reagan National. Thus, I believe it is necessary to introduce legislation that would direct the Department of Homeland Security to do so. I agree that security is the most important factor in this debate; however I also believe reasonable requirements can be put in place to ensure the safety of general aviation flights and help the local businesses that depend on this mode of transportation for their livelihood.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, today, with my colleagues, Senators Talent, Graham, McCain, Lott, Warner, Grassley and Thune, I rise to introduce the Minority Serving Institution Digital & Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2005. This legislation will provide vital resources to address the technology gap that exists at many Minority Serving Institutions, MSIs. With this legislation together, as a country, we move one step closer to eliminating what I like to call the ``economic opportunity divide'' that exists between Minority Serving Institutions and non-minority institutions of higher education. This legislation will establish a new grant program that provides up to $250 million a year to help Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges upgrade their technology and communications infrastructure. Since before I was elected to the Senate, my goal has always been to look for ways to improve education and empower all of our young people--regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion or economic background--to compete and succeed in life. With over 200 Hispanic Serving Institutions; over 100 Historically Black Colleges and Universities and 34 tribal colleges throughout our country, it is clear that Minority Serving Institutions provide a valuable service to the educational strength and future growth of our Nation. These institutions must have the technology capabilities and infrastructure available to their students and faculty to successfully compete and succeed in today's workforce. Our goal with this legislation is clear--by increasing access to technology and addressing the technological disparities that exist at Minority Serving Institutions we will provide our young people with important tools for success, both in the classroom and in the workforce. This nation's economic stability and growth are increasingly dependent on a growing portion of the workforce possessing technological skills. African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans constitute one- quarter of the total U.S. workforce. Approximately, one-third of all students of color in this nation are educated at Minority Serving Institutions. It is estimated that in 10 years minorities will comprise nearly 40 percent of all college-age Americans. Yet, members of these minorities represent only 7 percent of the U.S. computer and information science workforce; 6 percent of the engineering workforce; and less than 2 percent of the computer science faculty. At the same time, we know that 60 percent of all jobs require information technology skills and these jobs pay significantly higher salaries than jobs of a non-technical nature. I am proud to say Virginia is home to five Historically Black Colleges & Universities--Norfolk State University, St. Paul's College, Virginia Union University, Hampton University and Virginia State University. Mr. President, we must ensure that the students attending these minority institutions are competing on a level playing field when it comes to technology skills and development. We must tap the talent and potential of these students to ensure that America's workforce is prepared to lead the world. The legislation allows eligible institutions the opportunity through grants, contracts or cooperative agreements to acquire equipment, instrumentation, networking capability, hardware and software, digital network technology and wireless technology/infrastructure--such as wireless fidelity or WiFi--to develop and provide educational services. Additionally, the grants can be used for equipment upgrades, technology training and hardware/software acquisition. A Minority Serving Institution also can use the funds to offer its students universal access to campus networks, dramatically increase their connectivity rates, or make necessary infrastructure improvements. The best jobs in the future will go to those who are the best prepared. However, I am increasingly concerned that when it comes to high technology jobs--which pay higher wages--this country runs the risk of economically limiting many college students in our society. It is important for all Americans that we close this opportunity gap. Providing equal technological opportunities for all Americans will have a positive impact on our education system, our economic competitiveness and future generations of innovators and leaders. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation. This exact legislation passed the Senate last year 97-0. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for joining me today in cosponsoring this legislation and I look forward to working with fellow Senators to push this important measure across the goal-line so that many more college students are provided access to better technology and education, and most importantly, even greater opportunities in life.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would re-open Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to all aviation. Since the tragic attacks of September 11, 2001, general aviation flights have not been permitted to operate in and out of Reagan National Airport. My legislation would direct the executive branch to develop and implement standards for the resumption of general aviation flights. The closing of Reagan National to general aviation was understandable, prudent and tolerable in the weeks and months following the tragedy of September 11. The safety and security of the capital region is paramount and will always guide our decisions. But, despite Congressional action mandating a detailed plan to re-open the airport to general aviation following a massive strengthening of our airports and air traffic control system serving the Washington area, the Federal Government has done little to develop a plan that would allow for the use of Reagan National for private aircraft. Closing Reagan National to general aviation has had a substantial negative effect on jobs and the economy of the capital region. Non- scheduled air carrier operations at Reagan National once generated an estimated $50 million a year in direct economic activity from charter revenue, aircraft handling and refueling services. The lack of charter and general aviation passengers coming into the city, hotels, restaurants and other service businesses near Reagan National have suffered a significant, negative economic impact as well. Since September 11, 2001, air charter operators have participated in a rigorous security program that makes their operations just as safe, if not safer, than those of commercial airlines. Charter operators also have the capability to check the names of their passengers against government terrorist watch lists. Given the unique location of the airport, stakeholders in the general aviation industry are willing to comply with virtually any rational government policy that would grant access to Reagan National for general aviation aircraft. Such proposals include using ``gateway'' airports in which all flights into Reagan National must first land for additional screening, and added screening of pilots and passengers. There are also new technological advances that could be required for private planes using Reagan National. Notwithstanding the willingness of those in general aviation to comply with reasonable security procedures that may be implemented, government agencies have remained stolidly silent on the issue. That is why I have decided to introduce legislation directing the Department of Homeland Security to finalize and implement regulations that would again allow general aviation flights to operate at Reagan National. The measure allows for reasonable requirements to ensure the security of operations at Reagan National. The requirements include screening and certification of flight and ground crews; advance clearance of passenger manifests; physical screening of passengers and luggage; the physical inspection of aircraft; special flight procedures and limiting the airports from which flights can originate. The Government was able to find conditions under which commercial aviation could operate out of Reagan National following the September 11 terrorist attacks. I see no reason why similar conditions or requirements could not be developed to allow for general aviation to also begin operations again. Congressionally mandated actions on this issue have yet to result in a plan or set of circumstances that would fully re-open Reagan National. Thus, I believe it is necessary to introduce legislation that would direct the Department of Homeland Security to do so. I agree that security is the most important factor in this debate; however I also believe reasonable requirements can be put in place to ensure the safety of general aviation flights and help the local businesses that depend on this mode of transportation for their livelihood.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Class Action Fairness Act. This legislation we are considering today is crucial to ensuring that there is fairness in our courtrooms, that claimants receive the judicial consideration they deserve, and that the American economy and small businesses are able to stay competitive. This class action reform legislation is primarily designed to allow defendants to move a class action lawsuit from State court to Federal court when there is diversity or citizens from different States involved in the litigation. This concept is as old as our Republic. No one will be denied access to the courts. It is simply allowing most litigants to find the most appropriate court to decide the case. In significant cases with diversity, the Federal courts are the proper choice. We have heard about cases where lawyers shop around to find courts in particular counties that have a proven track record of being sympathetic to class action lawsuits with absurdly large judgments. When justice arbitrarily hinges on what county in which a case is tried, that is not fair. A recent study found that 89 percent of Americans believe the legal system is in need of reform. The statistics are indeed alarming: Over the past decade, the number of class action lawsuits has increased by over 1,000 percent nationwide. And the cost of the U.S. tort system has increased one hundred fold over the last 50 years. Lloyd's of London estimates that the tort system cost $205 billion in 2001, or $721 per U.S. citizen. Most importantly, Lloyd's estimates this number to rise to $298 billion by this year. At current levels, U.S. tort costs are equivalent to a five percent tax on wages. The implications of an abused tort system on the American economy are of legitimate concern. While there is no doubt that many class action lawsuits are legitimate, the inadequacies of the system have resulted in frequent abuses. And the increased cost to businesses has an enormous impact--tying the hands of businesses and restricting their ability to expand, provide additional jobs, or contribute to the economy. Even the threat of class action lawsuits forces businesses to spend millions of dollars. Defendants face the risk of a single judgment in the tens of millions or even billions of dollars, simply because a State court judge has rushed to certify a class without proper review. The risk of a single, bankrupting award often forces defendants to settle the case with sizable payments even when the defendant has meritorious defenses. Believe it or not, some opponents of the Class Action Fairness Act are still urging that the current class action system works well and that class action reform is unnecessary. Apparently, they do not think it is a problem when consumers take home 50-cent coupons to compensate them for their injuries, while their lawyers pocket millions in cash. Take for example a case against Blockbuster, Inc., where customers alleged they were charged excessive late fees for video rentals. These customers received $1 coupons while their attorneys received over $9 million. Or when one State court prevents citizens from litigating their claims under the law of their home State. Or when attorneys file the same lawsuit in dozens of State courts across the country and file the same lawsuit in a race to see which judge will certify the fastest and broadest class. In fact, numerous studies have documented class action abuses taking place in a small number of ``magnet'' State courts, and by now, it is beyond legitimate debate that our class action system is in shambles. As the Washington Post editorial page has noted, ``[n]o portion of the American civil justice system is more of a mess than the world of class action.'' A RAND Institute for Civil Justice, ICJ, Study on U.S. class actions released at the end of 1999 empirically confirms what has long been widely believed--State court consumer class actions primarily benefit lawyers, not the consumers on whose behalf the actions ostensibly are brought. Case studies in the ICJ piece confirm that in State court consumer class actions--that is, cases not involving personal injury claims--the fees received by attorneys are typically larger than the total amount of monetary benefits paid to all of the class members combined. In short, the lawyers are the primary beneficiaries. The ICJ Study contains no data indicating that this problem exists in Federal court class actions. If we do not pass this vital legislation, the class action process will remain a system ripe for exploitation, and the harm to the fundamental fairness of the civil justice system will continue to grow. Excessive and frivolous class action lawsuits stifle innovation, discourage risk-taking, and harm the entrepreneurship that drives our Nation's economic growth and job creation. This commonsense, bipartisan legislation will help alleviate the dramatic effects that have resulted from an abuse of the class action system. This legislation ensures that legitimate class action cases are given full consideration and that prevailing plaintiffs receive the compensation they deserve. Americans deserve to have a judicial system that is effective and efficient, and, most importantly, fair--this legislation goes a long way toward accomplishing these objectives. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. In the 108th Congress, this legislation came up one vote short. We now have four more Senators on our side of the aisle, so I am confident in its success in the 109th Congress. This is a success that people in States desire, and it will be a promise kept.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize LTC Daniel Lance Robey for his military service and leadership. LTC Robey recently retired after serving 19 years in the U.S. Army Reserve as a Judge Advocate and Civil Affairs Officer. A Fairfax county native, Lieutenant Colonel Robey graduated from W.T. Woodson High School, received his B.A. degree from Lebanon Valley College and then went on to receive his J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. During his military service, he has received numerous decorations and awards, including the Purple Heart after serving in the Vietnam War, the Bronze Star Medal, three Meritorious Service Medals and four Army Commendation Medals and recently, the Legion of Merit. Earlier in his military judicial career, LTC Robey was deployed to Bosnia in support of Operation Joint Endeavor as an International Law Officer. Recently, he was a part of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command and was deployed to Baghdad in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom as a Civil Affairs Officer. Lieutenant Colonel Robey currently works in Fairfax County as a litigator. He and his wife, Lisa, live in Reston. He has three sons, Brian, Kevin and Matthew. Among his military peers, the Lieutenant Colonel is regarded as a ``legend'' and surely will be missed in his retirement from the service. Today, I congratulate him on his outstanding performance of meritorious service to the Armed Forces of the United States and wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I'm extremely proud to recognize a dedicated American who has retired after 64 years of service to the United States Army. This month, Mr. Eric A. Orsini of Stafford, VA, departed Government work at the age of 87. Mr. Orsini began his service to country as a private in the Army in 1941. During World War II, he was highly decorated, earning the Bronze Star, the Silver Star and the Purple Heart in combat which included fighting in the Battle of the Bulge. Upon retiring from the military as a Colonel with 30 years of service, Mr. Orsini began working as a Senior Executive in the Department of the Army, where he would spend an additional 34 years, specializing in improving logistics support to our soldiers. Today, I wish Mr. Orsini the best in his well-deserved retirement. I'm pleased to hear that he will now finally have the opportunity to improve his golf game, go fishing more often and spend more time with his family. It is truly an honor to recognize a fellow Virginian for his distinguished service as both a soldier and a government civil servant. Mr. Orsini, your country thanks you for your courageous and meritorious work in the name of freedom.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, today I congratulate the James Madison University Football team for winning the 2004 NCAA Division I-AA football championship with a 31 to 21 victory over the Montana Grizzlies. This resolution expresses congratulations of the Senate these outstanding young men. As a former collegiate athlete and an avid football fan, I want to express the pride felt by all students, faculty and alumni of James Madison University at this tremendous accomplishment by the football team. Head Coach Mickey Matthews and his superb coaching staff: Curt Newsome, Jeff Durden, George Barlow, Kyle Gillenwater, Phil Ratliff, Chip West, Ulrick Edmonds, J.C. Price, Tony Tallent, Jim Durning, deserve much of the credit for the accomplishment of these student athletes and should also be highly commended. The James Madison University Dukes Football team fought to a 10 to 7 halftime lead on the strength of tailback Maurice Fenner's 1-yard touchdown and kicker David Rabil's 28-yard field goal. The Dukes went on to win the game with an outstanding second half performance, rushing for 257 and outscoring the Montana Grizzlies 31 to 21. In his distinguished career, Head Coach Mickey Matthews has won 40 games in 6 years at James Madison University and has taken the Dukes to the playoffs twice in his tenure. The American Football Coaches Association has named Coach Matthews the 2004 Division I-AA National Coach of the Year for his performance in the Dukes' championship season. Coach Matthews lead the Dukes to become the first team in Division I-AA history to win the national title without playing a single playoff game at home, battling for three consecutive playoff road victories. In addition to their 2004 national title, the team also shares the Atlantic Ten Championship title, one of the toughest Division I-AA conferences in the country. The members of the 2004 James Madison University Football have indeed made their university proud and should be applauded for their character and leadership, both on and off the playing field. I congratulate Nick Adams, Ryan Bache, L.C. Baker, Alvin Banks, Brandon Beach, Antoinne Bolton, D.D. Boxley, Rondell Bradley, Isai Bradshaw, Ardon Bransford, Anderson Braswell, Marvin Brown, Michael Brown, Ryan Brown, Shawn Bryant, George Burns, Robbie Catterton, Frank Cobbs, Sean Connaghan, Jamaal Crowder, Ben Crumlin, Corey Davis, John Michael Deeds, Isaiah Dottin-Carter, Harry Dunn, Sudan Ellington, Nick Englehart, Sid Evans, Maurice Fenner, Adam Ford, Casime Harris, Josh Haymore, Marcus Haywood, Tahir Hinds, Raymond Hines, Ryan Holston, Ryan Horn, David Ingraldi, Chris Iorio, Mike Jenkins, Bruce Johnson, Shelton Johnson, Akeem Jordan, Jacob Kahle, Clint Kent, Andrew Kern, Tim Kibler, Joe Kluesner, Rodney Landers, Scott Lemn, Matt LeZotte, Matt Magerko, Dexter Manley, Franklin Martin, Justin Mathias, Frank McArdle, Rodney McCarter, Craig McSherry, Andrew Michael, Bryce Miller, Leon Mizelle, Mike Mozby, William Nowell, Tom O'Connor, Will Patrick, David Rabil, Justin Rascati, Tom Ridley, Demetrius Shambley, Khary Sharpe, Andre Shuler, Bryan Smith, Leon Steinfeld, Chuck Suppon, Cortez Thompson, Nic Tolley, Trey Townsend, Brian Vaccarino, Kwynn Walton, Paul Wantuck, Mike Wilkerson, Kevin Winston, Stephen Wyatt, Kyle Zehr and Jake Zielinski. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join with Senator Warner and I to pass this resolution recognizing the National Champion James Madison University Football team.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of an important resolution of apology that Senator Mary Landrieu and I are resubmitting today. Since first submitting this measure last September, I am proud to say that approximately a third of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have lent their support by serving as original cosponsors this Congress. Like all of my colleagues, I am proud to be a Member of this Chamber, not for its grandeur, but because of the grand ideas it represents. It is here, at these small, wood desks, that big ideas have been debated and argued throughout the course of history for the greater good of the people of the United States and the world. It is here in this Chamber, on this floor, that representative democracy has reached consensus from what our Founding Fathers called the ``Will of the People.'' In the history of this Chamber, there have been many great minds and defenders of freedom. One of those, whose words still reverberate here today, is Daniel Webster. Standing in the old Senate Chamber, Webster told his colleagues in 1834 that a ``representative of the people is a sentinel on the watch tower of liberty.'' Indeed, the United States Senate has been a great watchtower on liberty. Many individuals have venerated the Senate as the world's greatest deliberative body. The formidable British Member of Parliament, William Gladstone, called the American Senate, ``that remarkable body, the most remarkable of all the inventions of modern politics.'' But unfortunately, this august body has a stain on its history: lynching. Americans died from a noose, from flogging, from a torch, from the evil hearts of men outside this Chamber. While three-fourths of the 4,742 victims of these injustices were African-Americans, no race escaped the cruel act that is so contrary to the rule of law, due process and equal protection that we pride ourselves on in the United States. Jewish people, Asians, Hispanics, American Indians, Italians and others found themselves unprotected. I rise today to offer a formal and heartfelt apology to all the victims of lynching in our history, and for the failure of the United States Senate to take action when action was most needed. This body failed to act as these vile killings captivated front-page headlines, drew crowds with morbid curiosity and left thousands of mostly African Americans hanging from trees or bleeding to death from the lashings of whips. In not acting, this body failed to protect the liberty of which Webster spoke. According to the archives of the Tuskegee Institute, 4,472 Americans died by lynching starting in 1882. Three-fourths of these acts of hatred were perpetrated against black men, women, and children. Many times these lynchings were not lone acts by a few white men. Rather, they were angry gangs or mobs whipped into frenzies by skewed mentalities of right and wrong. One of those who suffered this awful fate was an African American named Zachariah Walker of Coatesville, VA. In 1911, Walker was dragged from a hospital bed where he was recovering from a gunshot wound. Accused of killing a white man--which he claimed was in self-defense-- Walker was burned alive at the stake without a trial. Such horrendous acts were not just a regional phenomenon of the South. States like Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, and even the Washington, DC area experienced mob violence. Lynching was not just a regional problem; it was a national crime, which occurred in 46 States of our country. Despite the national scope of these acts, the Senate failed to pass any of the nearly 200 anti-lynching bills introduced in Congress during the first half of the twentieth century. After three bills were passed by the House of Representatives, they faced filibusters on this Senate floor. Seven Presidents from 1890 to 1952 asked that such laws be passed. A Federal law would have afforded more protection to the innocent and would have brought the resources of the Federal Government to bear on those responsible for such egregious acts. Sadly, only one percent of such acts were prosecuted by the State or local authorities. I am proud to say Virginia passed an anti-lynching law which logically accounts for relatively fewer lynchings than in any other States in our region. During the winter of 1937-1938, one grisly lynching captivated this body's attention. The previous April, two African Americans were taken from their jail cells in Mississippi, were whipped and slowly torched to death. Senator Champ Clark of Missouri posted photographs of the brutality back here in the cloakroom. For six weeks, this body debated legislation to make lynching a Federal crime. For six weeks. In the end, those in favor of the pending anti-lynching bill failed to enact cloture to break the filibuster. Historians will no doubt disagree as to a single reason why Senators blocked anti-lynching legislation in the 1920's to 1940's. My desire here is not to get into motivations. Regardless of their reasoning, our reason tells us that it was wrong and it is appropriate to apologize for this lack of action. Thankfully justice in our Nation has moved forward and left such despicable acts to history. In ignoring the protections of our Founding Fathers that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, the Senate turned its back on the most helpless in our society at a time when the weak needed protection. I stand here today as a proud Senator from a Southern State. I look around this chamber and know of its abundance of honor and integrity throughout its history. As Ephesians teaches us, ``all things that are reproved are made manifest by light.'' My fellow Senators, this simple, dignified apology is appropriate. It is not about any reparations. I respectfully urge my colleagues to reprove this tragedy and pass this resolution this month, February, in commemoration of Black History Month. I shall close with the words of our Resolution: Whereas an apology offered in the spirit of true repentance moves the United States toward reconciliation and may become central to a new understanding, on which improved racial relations can be forged: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- Apologizes to the victims of lynching for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation; Expresses the deepest sympathies and most solemn regrets of the Senate to the descendents of victims of lynching, the ancestors of whom were deprived of life, human dignity, and the constitutional protections accorded all citizens of the United States; and Remembers the history of lynching, to ensure that these tragedies will be neither forgotten nor repeated.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the President's nominee for Attorney General, Judge Alberto Gonzales. Judge Gonzales is a gentleman whom I have had the opportunity to work with in his role as counsel to President Bush. I have found him to be intelligent, steady, discreet, and honest in all our dealings. He is well qualified to be Attorney General. One should look at someone's record of performance. He served with skill and integrity as an effective counsel to the President. He has served as a distinguished jurist on the Supreme Court of Texas, as the 100th Secretary of State and chief elections officer in Texas and then as chief counsel to then- Governor Bush. People say he has a life story that is inspirational and then dismiss all of that. I say to my colleagues, if one looks at someone's background, how they were raised, their life experiences tell a great deal about how a person is as an adult and as a leader with responsibility. Alberto Gonzales was one of eight children, born to parents who were migrant workers. He was the first person to go to college in his family. He was a graduate of Rice University and Harvard Law School. He unequivocally has demonstrated that hard work and integrity will earn dividends no matter who one is in this country. He will not tolerate discrimination or limits on the ability of Americans to exercise their God-given rights or restrain any citizen in their equal opportunities and due process in the law. He was raised in the way of achieving those goals and achievements in life that one aspires to regardless of one's race, ethnicity, or religious beliefs. With any nominee, it seems there have to be a number of accusations that Senators and others will level against them, but I believe Mr. Gonzales has clearly, forcefully, and consistently made clear his position on a number of issues. In fact, he is one of the most responsive nominees in recent history. Judge Gonzales received hundreds of questions from 14 Senators who serve on the Judiciary Committee and one member not on that committee. Within 3 days, Judge Gonzales provided the committee with over 440 responses encompassing 221 single-spaced pages, in comparison to prior Attorney General nominees who received far fewer questions. Former Attorney General Janet Reno received only 35 questions for the record from five Senators. Records show that she responded to those questions 9 months after the Senate confirmed her. Even the New York Times took note of Judge Gonzales's responsiveness. In a January 19, 2005, article, it stated: His written responses totaling more than 200 pages on torture and other questions . . . offered one of the administration's most expansive statements of its positions on a variety of issues, particularly regarding laws and policies governing the CIA interrogation of terror suspects. If this is an indication of how Judge Gonzales responds to his job as Attorney General, I am fully confident he will make an excellent and fair Attorney General. Some will say he has not answered questions. Maybe they have not heard one of his many responses to this question about torture. But I think his statement in the Judiciary Committee that he ``denounces torture and if confirmed as Attorney General he will prosecute those who engage in torture,'' says it all. Maybe he can say it 12 more times and maybe 1 or 2 more Senators might understand it, but that is the record. There is obviously a relatively small number of people who oppose this nomination, but there is a strong majority who support his nomination and from all sides, Republicans, Democrats, men and women from all ethnic groups. Henry Cisneros, former HUD Secretary under President Clinton, opined that he has voted only once for a Republican in his life and Judge Gonzales was that person. He felt confirming Judge Gonzales as Attorney General would be good for America because ``he understands the realities many Americans still confront in their lives.'' Mr. Cisneros goes so far as to say: As an American of Latino heritage, I also want to convey the immense sense of pride that Latinos across the Nation feel because of Judge Gonzales's nomination . . . to one of the big four--State, Defense, Treasury and Justice. This is a major breakthrough for Latinos, especially since it is so important to have a person who understands the framework of legal rights for all Americans as Attorney General. Lynne Liberato, a self-proclaimed partisan Democrat and former president of the State Bar of Texas and the Houston Bar Association, stated the first good result of President Bush's reelection was that he nominated Alberto Gonzales to become Attorney General and that the only downside is he will not be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. She goes on to opine that she can say with complete confidence he is a good man with a good heart. Judge Gonzales's commitment to the betterment of America as a whole and its citizens has led to all sorts of accolades and awards. He has received many honors. In 2003, he was inducted into the Hispanic Scholarship Fund Alumni Hall of Fame. The United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce honored him for the Good Neighbor Award. He received presidential awards from the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the League of United Latin American Citizens. We should strongly support the President's nomination of Judge Gonzales to become Attorney General of the United States. He is the embodiment of the American dream, a man of hard work, of legal sense and intellect, and that has lifted him to some of the highest positions in our Nation. I like the fact that the President has nominated people who are good role models. I thought the fact that Dr. Rice had grown up in the segregated South. She applied and educated herself to obviously hold a very important position as Secretary of State--beyond her intellect and capabilities, it is a great life story that should be something for young people to be inspired by. The same with Judge Gonzales to become Attorney General of the United States. We have other heroes, such as our new Senator from Florida, Mel Martinez, a modern-day American dream coming from Castro's repressive Cuba. All Senators should aspire to be role models, and to the extent that people who have led the American dream, modern-day Horatio Algers stories should be an added plus to all their intellect, capabilities, and experiences. I say to my colleagues: Adelante con Alberto Gonzales. Let's move forward with this nomination.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an American success story. It is one that ended, at least his life on Earth, in June of last year. It is to the story of a man who rose from humble beginnings and surroundings to become a leader. In fact, he became one of, if not the greatest leaders, in the 20th century, and I am talking about President Ronald Reagan. This coming Sunday, February 6, would have been President Reagan's 94th birthday. I hope this weekend, when so many people in America will be watching the Super Bowl and all the festivities surrounding it, they will take a moment to remember not only Ronald Reagan's birth but to reflect on the positive impacts his life has had on so many people in America and around the world. He was a man who stood strong for enduring foundational principles in the face of conflict and adversity at home and who faced down the Communist menace abroad. Through it all, he never lost touch with the decency and the morality of America that we aspire for in our leaders and indeed all of our citizens. A few weeks ago, I took what I called a Ronald Reagan pilgrimage with my wife Susan and our three young kids to southern California. We went to the gravesite of the Reagan Presidential Library. There is also a museum, which is wonderful, and tells his whole life story. We also trekked up through all the rains and floods and fog, up to Rancho del Cielo, the Reagan ranch. There, at that ranch, you see the core of Ronald Reagan, the substance of him. He spent 1 out of 8 days as President up at this ranch, which is 600 acres. It is a very humble place--small, as far as the housing. It had a small shower. He must have been elbowing that shower all the time, trying to take a shower there. That is where he rode his horses, cut wood, trimmed trees. You could see this is how Ronald Reagan kept his common sense. This is where you see the essence of the man, why he was so well grounded so that he could somehow see the future and keep the inspiration and appreciation of the grandeur of God's creation with the beauty of the trees and the rocks and mountains and the animals, but also recognizing what is great about this country, and the hard work and the personal strength it takes to do various things. Ronald Reagan was a modern-day hero who embodied all that was great about George Washington and the spirits enunciated by Thomas Jefferson. His perseverance, his strength, his commitment to principle are lessons that taught me and taught many others. He was the person who inspired me and many others to get involved in organized politics and into public service. Today, thanks to Ronald Reagan, as I saw Ambassadors on the House floor from Lithuania, from Romania, throughout Central Europe--those were hundreds of millions of people who were behind the Iron Curtain. But, thanks to Ronald Reagan's perseverance, for his belief in the dignity of all human beings, that all people do yearn to be free, to exercise their God-given rights, those people who were behind that Iron Curtain, who were enemies, are now tasting that sweet nectar of liberty. They are our friends. They are our allies in this war on terror. Their numbers are growing, with greater hope and prosperity. Ronald Reagan helped make sure this century is the century of liberty. While President Reagan's life here on Earth is over, his legacy continues to endure, motivate, and inspire me and others here in America and around the world. I hope on this weekend we will think of Nancy Reagan, say a prayer for her, remember and also thank God for one of the greatest blessings He has provided to us and that is the birth of Ronald Wilson Reagan. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see my wonderful partner and colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, has joined us.

Mr. ALLEN. I thank my colleague.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I understand that the Democratic side has yielded their time. Mr. President, we are going to be in the final debate on the nomination of Dr. Rice. Yesterday, I asked my colleagues to be careful in their criticism. The position of Secretary of State is the voice and the advocacy of the policy of our country. We need to have a unity of purpose for the advancement of freedom. If people want to criticize some things, they should come up with positive, constructive ideas so as not to diminish the credibility of our Secretary of State. What I saw yesterday on the floor--and to some extent in the Foreign Relations Committee--that the confirmation proceeding of Dr. Rice is evolving into an overly partisan attack. I found out later yesterday evening that some of the attacks have really gone overboard. We heard about accountability--accountability for the prosecution of the war on terrorism, whether in Afghanistan or in the Iraq theater. The accountability was really determined by the people of this country with their votes for President George W. Bush to be reelected as President. However, we have heard from some on the other side of the aisle a continuation of their campaign arguments, whether here on the floor or in committee. There has been for years a very logical approach that in times of war, when we have our troops in harm's way overseas, in precarious and dangerous positions with their boots on the ground, that partisan politics ends at our waters' edge. We have heard that. When troops are abroad, partisan politics ends at our waters' edge. Unfortunately, that time-honored, respectful practice has been breached. Even worse than the outrageous statements in these serious times is we find that statements are being used for political posturing--but even worse, political fundraising. We have heard the arguments made in the sense that Oh well, this is advice and consent. This is from a fundraising letter based upon the argument and opposition to Condoleezza Rice. The fundraising letter from the DSCC sent to DSCC friends, talks about how the Senate must take its advice and consent role during the confirmation process. Advice and consent is fine. That is to be allowed, but advice and consent doesn't mean politicking and soliciting funds. That is exactly what has happened, in a very, and in my view, harmful way in some of the debate. It harms and diminishes the ability of our Secretary of State, Dr. Rice. She has great credibility, and I think she will still have great credibility. But there is going to be the question: Gosh, some in the United States don't think she is up to the task. There have been certain personal attacks. But to try to solicit political contributions from such damaging rhetoric, in my view, is deplorable; it is dangerous; and, it is disgusting. Here is how they end the letter. This is signed by the junior Senator from California. It ends with this reference to the Rice nomination-- assertions and allegations about Dr. Rice. So while I raise my voice on the Senate floor, I hope you will join us on the campaign trail and the loudest message of all, one that all Republicans will not be able to ignore, unseating them in the midterm elections and sending more Democrats to the Senate. Several times through this letter, it says contribute to the DSCC. It is fine to have a debate. There should be the concept of advice and consent, but it ought not to be soliciting and politicking. Clearly to be using something as serious as the nomination and confirmation of our Secretary of State to solicit campaign fund is particularly deplorable, especially during our global war on terror when we are trying to get more allies and friends to join with us. I hope as we get to this vote in about one hour that this sort of political chicanery, political maneuvering and solicitation of funds, and using something as important as this nomination will cease and desist. I thank you, Mr. President, and my colleagues for allowing me this time to say this. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will rein in this sort of behavior. I don't want to say each and every one of them condones it, but it is deplorable behavior that must cease. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I would like to speak later in commending Senator Brownback on his legislation. I am proud to be a cosponsor of it. I think it is a reasonable moderation on the excesses of abortion. I commend him for his leadership. I will speak on the Rice nomination later. I was asked to propound this request: I ask unanimous consent that during the hour of debate on the Rice nomination, time on the Democratic time be divided as follows: Senator Biden, 20 minutes; Mrs. Boxer, 5 minutes; Mr. Lieberman, 5 minutes, which was originally reserved for Senator Byrd.

Mr. ALLEN. I further ask unanimous consent that the order of speakers remain divided under the previous order.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support of the nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice to be our next Secretary of State. She comes to this position and this nomination with unquestioned credentials and the experience to carry out the U.S. foreign policy during these very trying times. She is, in my view, the personification of the American dream. Although she grew up in the days of segregation, applying herself and working hard allowed her to advance through academia, and clearly also in this President's administration. The goals of this administration are not just the goals of the Bush administration; they ought to be the goals of America and all other freedom-loving people around the world. Dr. Rice, in her testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, talked about the advancement of freedom. The President mentioned it several times in his inaugural address. What we aim to do as Americans, for our own security but also because of our care for fellow human beings here on this Earth, is to make sure they have freedom--freedom of opportunity regardless of one's race, ethnicity, gender, or religious beliefs. We are trying to advance what I like to call the four pillars of freedom: No. 1, freedom of religion; No. 2, freedom of expression; No. 3, private ownership of property; and, No. 4, the rule of law to help adjudicate disputes as well as protect those God-given rights. Dr. Rice, through her own life history and through her service to this administration, has the background that is going to help us and help others during this heroic time. The President nominated Dr. Rice because he trusts her. She has provided him counsel during these turbulent times in our Nation's history. She was part of the effort in formulating the Nation's response and ultimately toppling a despotic and repressive regime in Afghanistan. Following the 9/11 attacks in the United States, the world recognized the necessity of having a global, international war against terrorism. As National Security Adviser, Dr. Rice had been at the forefront of this effort and advised President Bush on how best to execute the war on terror and help ensure that the United States is not attacked again. The global war on terror is not over. We all know it is ongoing and we know it is challenging. There have been some criticisms from those on the other side of the aisle, but there are also positives. It would be nice, once in a while, to talk about some of the positives. We have captured numerous senior-level al-Qaida figures. They have been killed or they have been captured, and hundreds of others are on the run. We are working with other countries--even those which are not necessarily with us in the military action in Iraq. They are helping in trying to intercept financial assistance to terrorist organizations. Another positive is the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and that repressive regime has been replaced by an unprecedented but promising democracy in Afghanistan. The Government of Pakistan, which, prior to 9/11, was aligned with that Taliban government in Afghanistan, has become a strong and helpful ally in the global war against terrorism. In Libya, Muammar Qadhafi, who was a thorn in our side--a threat, clearly; a terrorist state--has been convinced to give up his nuclear ambitions and rejoin the world community. And our military has liberated 25 million Iraqis from the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein. While conditions on the ground in Iraq continue to be difficult--no one is going to question that--if the Iraqis coalesce around the new, popularly elected government, it will likely have the positive repercussions that we would like to see throughout the Middle East region. Shortly they will be having an election. I think Dr. Rice's active role in these events provide her with valuable preparation to serve our country as Secretary of State. Having worked closely with President Bush on national security and foreign policy matters for the previous 4 years, Dr. Rice is uniquely qualified to communicate this President's message, our position, to capitals around the world. All of us are a composition of our life experiences. From rising above discrimination and racism in her youth to her work during the fall of the Soviet Union, to her role in liberating the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, Dr. Rice is very well prepared to advocate freedom and democracy around the world. Before the Foreign Relations Committee we heard several hours of testimony. We have heard comments in this Chamber. Detractors have used some bump-and-run defenses and tactics against her. Opponents have framed the war on Iraq--and Dr. Rice as having stated this--as one solely based on Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction; that our only reason for going in and using military action in Iraq was weapons of mass destruction. I will grant you, that was a pressing, salient concern, but that was not the only reason. Weapons of mass destruction was a major reason; however, this body voted on an authorization measure that outlined a much broader case. If you want to use a legal term, it was a multi- count indictment against the Saddam Hussein regime. The resolution that we passed by a strong margin noted Iraq's brutal repression of its civilian population and its unwillingness to repatriate non-Iraqi citizens. We all know how they had used weapons of mass destruction against their own people. Congress also went on record as supporting using the necessary means to enforce multiple United Nations resolutions that had been ignored and flouted by the Iraqi regime, including shooting at some of our planes in the no-fly zones in the north and to some extent in the southern part of Iraq as well. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power Saddam's regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government. Senator Byrd--and I was listening to his comments--mentioned common sense. I listened to the remarks of the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, earlier on. He is criticizing Dr. Rice for supporting President Bush's policies. He said that ``might have changed the course of history had she not given the reasons and the advice that she did to the President.'' Because of that, that she agrees with President Bush, has been an architect and key adviser, because of that support, because of that knowledge, because of the advice she has given in the past and presently, she should not be Secretary of State for this President. If one wants to use common sense, why would any Executive bring on a Cabinet Secretary--particularly one as important as Secretary of State--if that person does not share his views, his values, his philosophy, his goals for our country, as well as have that President's trust? Also, looking through the comments that have been made by others, the junior Senator from Indiana said why he is going to be voting against Dr. Rice, complaining that there was too little troop strength, dismissal of the Iraqi army, and the refusal to include Baathists in the armies and security efforts there in Iraq. Opponents have held Dr. Rice personally accountable for the decision to disband the Iraqi army and remove members of the Baathist Party from Iraq's government. Let us again use some common sense. When we are reflecting on this decision, it is easy, I suppose, to Monday morning quarterback and criticize and question whether that was wise. But at the time of that decision--it was clear that institutions that were repressing the people of Iraq was the Baathist Party. So the Baathist component of the insurgency, which some are saying should have been incorporated, they are the ones who are carrying on these terror attacks--not just on Americans and coalition forces but also on Iraqi civilians. To me, it is illogical to be criticizing Dr. Rice for any of the decisions that were made insofar as Baathists and the security forces of Iraq when these same people could have been infiltrating the security forces, not knowing what sort of information they might transmit to other guerillas or terrorists on the outside. To criticize that, again, doesn't make much sense to me because they are the ones who are most concerned that the Baathist Party was thrown out of power. They had their good bureaucratic jobs. They had all the power. They had all the privileges. To criticize for not incorporating them into the interim government and the security forces doesn't make a great deal of sense. You also hear, again, from the junior Senator from Indiana--and others have said this as well--that those in charge must be held accountable for the mistakes. That is why they are going to vote against Dr. Rice. Dr. Rice allowed in the committee hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee that every decision that was made was not the right decision; that they did it with the best of intentions, the right principles, based on the evidence and information they had. But if you are going to criticize the pursuit of regime change, the liberation of Iraq, the advancement of freedom in countries such as Iraq, which is in very short order, within a week, going to have elections for the first time ever, what is the solution if you are going to criticize all of this? To tuck tail and run? I don't think that is what the American people want. The American people want to see freedom in Iraq because they recognize it is good for fellow human beings, but also the logic that it also makes this country much more secure. In analyzing all of the statements, they are not talking about her fitness or her qualifications to serve as Secretary of State. The opponents have used this nomination to launch these broadside attacks on the Bush administration and use the Monday morning quarterback approach to dissect every decision out of context. We have heard about a lot of this, again, in the Foreign Relations Committee. But even there, I want to repeat, Dr. Rice did not say that every decision was perfect. She allowed as much during those hearings. But let us also note that 25 million Iraqis have been freed from Saddam's repressive regime. In 5 days, these people are going to have elections. They are going to be forming their own government. From statements of clerics and otherwise, they seem to want a constitution and a government that allows for individual rights, where people's rights will be enhanced and not diminished on account of their ethnicity or their religious beliefs, and also unprecedented opportunities for women to serve in government. One other thing to note is with Saddam out of power, which seems to be criticized indirectly, we don't have Saddam's regime giving $35,000 to parents to send their children on suicide-murder missions into Israel. Instead of that repressive regime sending terrorist attackers into Israel, also disrupting the whole region, now we have the chance of elections in Iraq for the first time ever, a first step towards a representative democracy. I ask my colleagues to be cognizant. This is not an agency head. It is a Cabinet Secretariat, the Secretary of State, which is arguably the most important Cabinet position in the Government. The Vice President obviously is very important, but the Secretary of State, particularly in a time with all the diplomatic relations and all the efforts that we are going to need to be making and continue to make to get allies, converts, and assistance from other countries around the world, it is important that the President's representative to the rest of the world is a person who advocates and garners further support for our position in matters of great consequence to our country. I ask my colleagues to be careful in your criticism. People can say whatever they want. They will say something, and I will say that doesn't make sense; here is a more logical approach. That sort of bantering back and forth is fine. But in the criticism and statements and also trying to divide opinion on this nomination of Dr. Rice, be careful not to diminish her credibility in the eyes of those in capitals around the world. Detractors can do this country a great disservice by playing too hard a partisan game. We need to show a unity of purpose to advance freedom. Folks can second-guess, criticize. That is all fine. But while doing that, a more positive and constructive approach would be to say, here is where a mistake was made; here is where we need to hitch up; here is the stage of events in Iraq; and here are some positive, constructive ideas to help us achieve this goal; that all Americans, regardless of whether you are Republican, Democrat, Independent, or don't care about politics, all Americans are inspired to the idea that our fellow human beings can live in freedom and opportunity; that their children are not starving and hungry when they go to bed, where there is a better world. Indeed, our new doctrine is peace through liberty, peace through strength. That mattered against the Soviet Union. The doctrine in the future, in my view, is peace through liberty. As more people are tasting that sweet nectar of liberty, it is good for them, and it helps our security as a country. As we listen to some of these partisan detractors and statements, be cognizant that the rest of the world is watching. Do not diminish Dr. Rice's credibility in capitals around the world. Also, try to be positive in your ideas of where we need to go in the future rather than just carping and sniping on decisions made in the past. I do not see any value in attacking Dr. Rice personally or inhibiting her ability to bring our allies along, on board, whether or not they were in every aspect of the military action in Iraq. In sum, obviously, I believe Dr. Rice will be an outstanding Secretary of State. It is unfortunate some of this has devolved into an overly partisan attack. This debate, as it goes forward this afternoon, this evening, and tomorrow, can end on a more positive, constructive sense. I ask my colleagues in a respectful way to recognize that inspirational path that Dr. Rice has taken to this nomination. Please focus and review her impeccable credentials and experience on the matters of foreign policy. Upon doing so, I believe it is clear she should be confirmed overwhelmingly, strongly, and proudly as our next Secretary of State. I ask unanimous consent that an article from today's Wall Street Journal by Brendan Miniter entitled ``Woman of the Year, Instead of Celebrating Condi Rice, Democrats Nip at Her Ankles,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise to bring to my colleagues' attention a bill I introduced today called the Honoring the Fallen Soldiers and Families Act of 2005, sharing the same views of Senator Sessions of Alabama, who has worked on this legislation, as well as many of us over the years, including my partner, Senator Warner. This measure is originally cosponsored by Senators Bill Nelson, Mike DeWine, Ben Nelson, Elizabeth Dole, Lisa Murkowski, and David Vitter. Mr. President, as Americans, I believe we need to do everything we can to make sure our men and women in uniform are provided with the most technologically advanced armaments and equipment for their safety and their security when they are protecting our liberty. We also need to take care of the families of the soldiers who lose their lives, those who are killed in action and on duty. We need to care more about their surviving families. Currently, there are a number of benefits that are provided to family members who lose a loved one while serving our great Nation. Some of these benefits include the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance policies, the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation Program, education benefits, and Government housing. However, there is one benefit I have been concerned with during my tenure in the Senate. This is called the military death gratuity. It is a tax-exempt cash payment, currently at the amount of $12,000, which provides immediate financial compensation to families of those service men and women who have lost their lives serving our great Nation. During the past 108th Congress, I cosponsored legislation authored by Senator Susan Collins of Maine to double the death gratuity from $6,000 to $12,000, which at the time was apparently a big deal, since Congress had sparingly raised the death gratuity since its inception in 1908. The last increase before then was at the end of the first gulf war in 1991. Even then, half of that benefit was subjected to taxation. Some of us in Congress understood the need to provide this financial assistance and were able to get this provision included in a larger bill, the Military Family Tax Relief Act of 2003. Not only did this legislation double the death gratuity from $6,000 to $12,000, but it also made the payments of these moneys tax exempt. However, that is not enough, $12,000. I still believe this current amount of $12,000 is a miserly and paltry amount. Indeed, I consider it insulting. I have been speaking with people from Virginia and all across America and listening to them. It is confirmed to me how truly insulting this sum of money is. My sense is that a grateful Nation wants to better help the widows, widowers, and the children of those who have given their lives and their futures in defense of our country and our liberties, whether it was in Afghanistan, Iraq, or elsewhere in the world. When I was bringing this issue up, I got an e-mail and many messages from people across the country. This one is from Mrs. Margaret Stubenhofer from Springfield, VA, who wrote: Dear Senator Allen: On December 7, 2004, our son Captain Mark Stubenhofer (U.S. Army) was killed in action while serving in Iraq. He was shot by insurgents. Mark, who was born and raised in Springfield, VA, leaves behind his wife (Patty, age 30) and 3 small children (Lauren, 5 yrs, Justin, 2\1/2\ yrs, and Hope, 4 months). I am writing to you in support of the proposed legislation to raise the military survivor benefits. It is appalling to me that our people, who also suffered a great tragedy, are receiving millions of dollars after their loved ones died on 9-11 . . . yet, dependents of military personnel killed in action while bravely serving their country in a foreign land receive only slightly more than $12,000 as a death gratuity and $100,000 in insurance benefits. I am very much in favor of these benefits being raised to a more reasonable level; and I ask you to continue to support such action as to make this possible. In all good conscience, how can we possibly ask these young men and women to be ready to die for their country . . . and then leave their survivors with almost nothing when their worst nightmare actually becomes a reality? That is a good question. That is why I am introducing, with a number of my Senate colleagues who are cosponsoring, the Honoring Our Fallen Soldiers and Families Act of 2005. I am glad this is getting a lot of support from both sides of the aisle and leadership. This legislation will raise the military death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000 for the families of those service men and women who have lost their lives serving our great Nation since October 1, 2001. The reason for October 1, 2001--the retroactivity--is that is when the military action began in Afghanistan. As I mentioned, there a number of other benefits that family members whose loved one has died will receive, but unlike the death gratuity that reaches family members within 48 hours of the death, the other benefits can take some time--in fact, months--to make it to the family. That is just too long a period of time. They will eventually get it, but that short-term, immediate influx of money helps provide for the monetary stability at a time of great grief and uncertainty. The money can help pay for a home mortgage or for rent or gas or utilities bills, car payments, or schooling. School kids may be in schools where there are expenses. It will also help put food on the table. As a matter of fact, many of the fallen soldiers were the sole or significant breadwinner for the families, and the families are left without any immediate source of income. It is doubly important for members of the Guard and Reserve. Approximately a quarter to a third of those who serve in the Guard and Reserve actually take a pay cut when they are called up or activated to serve. While it is a source of income that may be less than they were receiving in the private sector, it is still a significant, substantial part of that family household's income. So when a soldier loses his or her life, even if it is a lower amount, the money stops. That is why it is imperative that we in Congress raise the death gratuity to a level that will take care of the immediate financial needs of these families. Some have questioned or critics may argue that raising the death gratuity to $100,000 is too costly. I contend that if you look at firefighters and police officers, these great citizens of our communities who are our warriors at home, saving lives from fires or in law enforcement actions, they generally get a death gratuity in the amount of $50,000 to $100,000. In our Commonwealth of Virginia, a police officer or firefighter who loses his or her life in the line of duty receives a $75,000 death gratuity. My proposal is to put some logical symmetry between what our warriors on the homefront--the police officers and firefighters--get and what our soldiers stationed at home and abroad get. In addition, as long as we have an all-volunteer Army, we need to make sure our soldiers know and their families know they have the best possible benefits should the unthinkable happen. I believe this legislation will help put some of those worries at ease. Whatever the amount may be, I guarantee to each of my colleagues that any family would rather have their loved one there at holidays and birthdays and anniversaries than the $100,000, but there is a big financial hole in their lives. There is also one that cannot be compensated. But it is one that a grateful Nation would want to provide. I will close by quoting George Washington, who was one of our greatest leaders, when he made a very wise and still cogent observation. He cautioned that the willingness of future generations to fight for their country, no matter how just the cause, will be proportional to how they perceive previous veterans were treated. It is important that we show a deeper appreciation for those heroic soldiers who died defending our liberty and also their brave families back home who have paid the ultimate sacrifice as well. This legislation is a significant striding step in that direction. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to quickly act on this legislation and all others trying to help our families of fallen heroes and their loved ones and pass these measures as quickly as possible, and also make them retroactive for all of those nearly 1,500 who have lost their lives protecting our freedom, advancing liberty throughout the world, and people who are truly American heroes whom we will always remember.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I want to share my views, as did Senator Hutchison and others, about our colleagues who are leaving for new adventures in life. I wish all the best to Senator Hollings. We will miss his booming voice. We will miss Senator Edwards, Senator Graham of Florida, and Senator Daschle. We will also miss John Breaux, a man we know will enjoy life with his good common sense and sense of humor. He is a good friend. I want to speak about four others, though, including Peter Fitzgerald, whom I will miss. He will always be known for two ideas and principles of life--honesty and integrity. He has certainly fought hard for what he believed was right, and you can always trust his word. Ben Nighthorse Campbell is a unique, proud leader of heritage. He is a man of principle. I look at Ben Nighthorse Campbell as one who runs on his own gear ratio. He is a character with character, whom I will certainly miss. Don Nickles--gosh, what a smart, principled leader. He will be missed. He is a taxpayer's hero. Last night, my wife and I enjoyed the Allen Jackson concert in DC. And that makes me think of country music. Don Nickles is one of the reasons God made Oklahoma. We will miss Don Nickles. Zell Miller is probably the colleague that I have known the longest. He and I served at the same time as Governors of our respective States. He was always one of my role models. We got to know each other very well in the Southern Governors Association. Before I came to the Senate, one of the people who motivated me to go to the Senate was Paul Coverdell. Zell took his seat and his office. When I came in, Zell gave up that office, and now I am in Zell Miller's and Paul Coverdell's former office. I will think of Zell a lot in the future. Two years ago, when Zell announced his retirement, or that he was not going to run again, some were saying Zell Miller is a lame duck. Well, on this floor, at our convention in New York City, and throughout this fall, Zell Miller was anything but a lame duck. Zell Miller leaves office as a ``mighty duck.'' We are going to certainly miss Zell. We know he will stay active.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I want to discuss two important ideas and issues that are essential, I think, for America's future and our opportunities. First, I thank my colleagues in the House and the Senate for support of S. 150, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act. Second, I want to discuss the significant advances in broadband Internet technologies over the past 8 years, particularly since the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, and the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, for their continued leadership on the Internet tax moratorium. I have enjoyed working both with Chairman McCain and Senator Wyden over the years on numerous technology-related projects, such as nanotechnology, WiFi, unsolicited commercial e-mail, or SPAM and SPYWARE. They are great teammates on these telecommunications and technology issues, and I thank them. Yesterday afternoon, the House of Representatives passed S. 150, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, which cleared this important legislation for the President's signature later this year. As colleagues have heard me say on many occasions, the moratorium on Internet taxation has been one of my top legislative priorities since coming to the Senate. I have held this position since 1997, in my days as Governor of Virginia, when I was one of only four Governors to share the view in support of the visionary leadership of Congressman Chris Cox and Senator Wyden on this issue of Internet taxation. I have consistently advocated policies and ideas that promote freedom and opportunity for all Americans. This legislation, S. 150, authored with Senator Wyden, protects every American from harmful, regressive taxes on Internet access, as well as from duplicative and predatory taxes on Internet transactions. Today, the winners are the American people. I am very pleased to see that this measure was a victory for those of us who stand for freedom, opportunity, and prosperity, rather than more taxation and burdensome regulations of the Internet. This legislation is a real victory for American consumers, small businesses, rural Americans and, most important, low-income families. It is the result of a hard-fought success that extends the tax moratorium for another 4 years, from the time the last one expired until October 31, 2007. Additionally, this legislation updates the previous moratorium to protect all types of Internet access platforms, including dial-up, satellite, cable modem service, DSL, wireless technology, and even next generation broadband networks, such as broadband over power lines. Basic economics indicate that for every dollar of taxation added to the cost of Internet access, we can expect to see lost utilization of opportunities for the Internet for thousands of American families, especially those in rural areas and those of lower income. With clear tax protection at the Federal level, S. 150 ensures that a complex, costly, and outdated telephone-like tax regime, which averages about 15 percent to 18 percent nationally, will not be imposed on Internet consumers. The guiding principle of the Internet tax moratorium has always been that the Internet should remain as accessible as possible to all people in all parts of the country forever. The Internet is one of our country's greatest innovations for individual empowerment, economic growth, and jobs. So extending the tax moratorium and protecting all types of broadband technology platforms puts this country one step closer to closing the economic digital divide. The fact of the matter is--there are more Americans empowered by the Internet today, primarily because the Federal policy of the United States has consciously allowed Internet innovators, entrepreneurs, and consumers to remain free from burdensome, onerous taxation and unnecessary regulation. I am honored that the majority of my colleagues in the Senate and the House have agreed to preserve this policy for another 4 years with the passage of S. 150. I thank all for their support.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for as much time as I may consume.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I would now like to discuss the exciting changes that have taken place over the last 8 years in the telecommunications industry, in particular with regard to broadband Internet technologies. As many of us know, the 1996 Telecommunications Act was the first major overhaul of the communications policy in over 60 years. Since the passage of that law, remarkable changes have occurred in the technologies used to deliver telecommunications services. Some of these changes may be products of the 1996 act. However, many are due to the tremendous explosion of new and advanced broadband technologies. Specifically, the Internet or digital technologies are replacing the slower legacy communications networks with multiple high-speed broadband platforms. For example, DSL, cable modems, 3G wireless, WiFi, ultrawide band, satellites, broadband over power lines, are all advanced communications networks delivering the same services and many more services, not just data, not just voice, but also video. Broadband is widely considered the future of communications because it enhances the consumers' experience on the Internet and will have a tremendous impact on our country's economy. By 2006, economists at the Brookings Institution estimate that widespread high-speed broadband Internet access would increase our national gross domestic product by $500 billion annually. The Internet and the broadband revolution are opening up a whole new world of opportunity that did not exist prior to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. By almost any measure, consumers are better off and have more choices now than ever before. These advancements have actually outpaced the laws and especially outpaced the economic regulations governing the communications industry because new Internet-enabled services do not easily fit into the stovepipe regulatory model of the 1996 act. Unfortunately, the regulatory treatment of a given broadband provider depends on the particular platform that provider uses to offer their service. DSL providers are regulated entirely different from wireless broadband providers or cable modem service providers. All of these platforms deliver the same service--broadband Internet access. Yet all are regulated completely different from the other. This type of regulatory regime picks technology winners and losers, creating, in my view, a competitive advantage for certain technology platforms over others. A number of my colleagues have called to revisit and potentially rewrite the telecommunications law, and I commend them for their leadership on these issues. I believe any rewrite of the telecommunications law must take into account the transformative and positive impact broadband technologies have on the future of communications. In considering what the next Telecommunications Act should look like, I am guided by a few foundational principles. First, we should favor innovation and freedom over regulation. I call myself a commonsense Jeffersonian conservative. I trust free people, free enterprise, and free markets to allow them to innovate and create opportunities for all Americans to advance, compete, and succeed. Nowhere is this more true than with the Internet. Restraining from regulating the economics of Internet applications has served consumers well with the advances in the Internet technologies, such as voice-over-IP or voice-over-Internet protocols. Entrepreneurs are a Web site away from offering phone services better than those offered by traditional telephone providers. Virtually every consumer with broadband Internet access can now choose among potentially hundreds of telephone service providers. Internet applications are bringing new competition to old markets which means more innovation, lower prices, and higher quality of service for consumers who also can easily move to any other vendor if they get dissatisfied with any of those providers. As elected leaders, we should ensure that our policies embrace and encourage this type of innovation and continued advancement. Second principle: Support a competitive level playing field over fragmentation and ditches. As a former Governor of Virginia, I am an ardent supporter and believer in the principles of federalism. Our Founders, though, wisely realized, when constructing our Constitution, the importance of a coherent national policy regarding matters affecting interstate commerce. Certainly, one of the great attributes of the Internet is that it is not limited by the boundaries of States or local governments. It is actually not even limited by the boundaries of countries. By its structure and unique architecture, it is clearly, though, interstate commerce and, indeed, international commerce. I am reluctant to support policies that encourage the fragmentation of telecommunications regulation to State and local authorities, especially as communications transition to a digital format. Third, and last, let's make sure we keep it clear and keep it certain. One of my biggest concerns with the 1996 Telecommunications Act is that it has brought forward a tremendous amount of litigation and legal uncertainty. This ongoing litigation and regulatory uncertainty has slowed the deployment and potentially stifled the advancement of future high-speed broadband networks. Any revision to the 1996 Telecommunications Act should contain clear, simple, coherent legislative principles that provide legal certainty and regulatory clarity for business models and also for the capital investment decisionmakers. It has been the policy of the United States to promote the continued development and deployment of the Internet. The broadband revolution is bringing tomorrow's communications and commerce tools to more and more Americans every day. These new opportunities for consumers are also providing new opportunities for our Nation's economy in terms of job creation, productivity gains, and innovation. It is my great hope that as the Senate considers these important issues and potential telecommunications reform next year, we do so mindful that consumers are enjoying more choices, better value, and more personalized products in the Internet age than ever before, primarily due to the advances of broadband technologies. I ask my colleagues to stand strong for freedom, for clarity of purpose, and we will see more investment and more jobs. I look forward to working with my colleagues for these exciting advancements in the future. We must keep adapting, keep innovating, and keep improving for the competitive benefit of the American people. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and also Senator Wyden of Oregon, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 146 which was submitted earlier today.